“A Research-Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy” is this week’s reading by Seth Andrew Hudson, Ph.D. When I saw the title, I thought it must be a complex article to understand. Because I am not really into games, I have no idea about it when I have to talk about something. However, I tried to complete my reading and I found some interesting information. I immerse myself in the “Data Collection and Analysis” part. It gives me information about how to collect and analyze data. The study involved one-on-one interviews with participants at industry events and email lists. The interviews were conversational, allowing for the co-creation of knowledge and interpretation through a conceptual lens. The interviewer coded responses in situ, allowing for interaction and identifying emergent themes. Open coding was performed to identify points of emotional intensity. The data was analyzed using meaning condensation tables from Brinkmann and Kvale’s (2014) framework. The process involved revisiting the transcripts and audio, extracting natural units that accurately portrayed the context of specific responses. This curated sampling of natural units was the final data set. The engagement with the data was particularly useful as an educator, providing immediate insights for classroom practice and enhancing game writing pedagogy.
I think it must be a hard part of research. However, it plays an important role in research. When I read this part, I seem to understand partly the way to collect and analyze data.
A Research-Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy by Seth Andrew Hudson, PhD, seems to be the easier research theory to comprehend. Thus, I am eagerly excited to learn more about the theory in the lead discussion this week, and I’m saving some time to research and write the Research Proposal.
For instance, “There is nothing like game writing” captures the common sentiment of these texts as Wendy Despain frames her edited collection on writing for video game genres, which appears to be an industry-veteran authors’ alternative to “drowning our sorrows and crying in their beer.” It also looks like “statements like this signify the limitation of relying on these trade press publications as a scholarly assessment of the field” (94). In other words, the thinkable ways to consider writing with video games would be a thing for future generational use as a similar school of thought relating to Notes From a Writer’s Desk: Gamifying Research and Writing:
————
The object of gamification is to utilize game elements, including gameplay mechanics and structure, point scoring, competition, and prizes, to encourage certain behaviors. Companies often use Gamification to encourage consumer engagement with products. Frequent flier miles are a great example, as accruing points through repeated use of an airline can result in rewards like free flights or upgrades. Another noteworthy example is the system of achievements embedded in many video games. These achievements may be tied to core missions or game mechanics or associated with arbitrary tasks available in the normal course of the game, and they often reward the player with a score, digitally tangible badge, or in-game trinket.
We can utilize similar models to mask the “work” aspect of our research and writing by associating it with something fun, motivating, or rewarding. Graduate Student of Harvard School of Arts and Science Anthony Shannon proclaims how he used an achievement system towards the end of my dissertation work. His favorite arbitrary dissertation achievement was for his bibliography to have authors representing every letter in the alphabet, which he achieved thanks to an article on doubled divinities in the Phoenician world by Paolo Xella.
Recently, he led a workshop called “Gamifying the Dissertation,” where he presented ideas on gamifying research and writing. Anthony offered some basic examples of the do-it-yourself (DIY) approach that students could develop on their own or with a group of friends or colleagues, including:
Create a points system.
You can motivate yourself to write by assigning values to aspects of your writing, such as word count or time spent writing. You can track points at week or month intervals and try to set a high score. Alternatively, you can collect points and exchange them for rewards, like a weekend trip, a date with your significant other, purchasing a coat, or going to Costco. A points system is a fun way to categorize larger projects into smaller, more manageable chunks and to reward yourself for each step of the process. You can also share it with your friends and compete for rewards, or even recruit friends and family to supply rewards for you to strive toward.
Create your own game.
If you are interested in something more complex, you can create your own game centered around your research and writing habits. For example, you could create a list of enemies that require a certain amount of XP to defeat, which you can earn by completing certain research or writing tasks. You can introduce randomness by using cards or dice to determine the XP required to defeat an enemy or the amount of XP awarded per task. This can also be a group accountability activity, with each member responsible for gaining enough XP to defeat enemies collaboratively.
Workshop attendees brainstormed ideas for gamifying their work and for designing a useful system for students from different disciplines. They also raised interesting questions about gamification, including what can be considered an incentive—is ice cream an incentive, a motivator, or both?—and how to keep gamification from consuming us and hindering progress, thus defeating its purpose. One way to potentially avoid this pitfall is to use a ready-made platform for habit and writing tracking, such as:
It is modeled after Dungeons and Dragons-type RPGs. It uses a dungeon master who assembles a player party and designs a campaign of pre-made or custom tasks that reward XP.
Allows you to specify your tasks, level of difficulty, and rewards. Its user-friendly interface reminds me of a gamified version of Trello and other similar task managers.
Uses monetary incentives, allowing you to place bets on yourself to accomplish your goals. If you don’t meet your goals within certain parameters or with a certain consistency, you pay up.
Uses a variety of incentives in its three different base modes: Stimulus, which encourages focus and productivity by changing the audio-visual elements of the interface; Consequence, which punishes you with alarm noises and images of spiders; and Reward, which treats you to pleasant sounds and images like kittens and puppies. For real risk-takers, there is also Kamikaze mode, which will start deleting your work if you don’t meet your goals.
On this free platform, you can set your word goal intervals (100, 200, 500, 1000 words), and at each interval, you are rewarded with a picture of a kitten, puppy, or bunny.
You will receive points for participating each day and for writing 750 words each day. You can also compete with others on monthly challenge leaderboards.
This is a more active writing catalyst that pits you against a monster who drains your health over time and can only be defeated by meeting your self-imposed word goal.
Anthony concludes that there are many options available for those interested in gamifying their research and writing habits (The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2024). Conversely, any existing gaps in communication between the game industry and higher education should not serve as an excuse to retreat to our respective bases of understanding. Rather, those gaps are indicative of an opportunity for researchers to engage with a new field that represents a convergence of technology, art, storytelling, and interactivity in the digital age. Deployed in pedagogy, those efforts will certainly benefit the students we seek to serve and our field of study; they may also innovate the medium itself. (Husdon, p. 110). Selah.
This week, I’m taking a page out of Tyler’s book. These bullet points, in no particular order, are just some thoughts I had throughout. Overall though, I genuinely enjoyed reading this and exploring uncharted territory.
When I learned that this was about game writing, it instantly piqued my interest. It’s one of those jobs you don’t realize exist, at least not to me. Kind of like a camera engineer on an animation film or a hair fabricator on the set of Coraline.
“Remaining open to scholarship and methods in other established disciplines that may not seem relevant at first glance, offers a vital opportunity to explore more effective pedagogies of game design in higher education.” (pg.93) “Teaching writing with a focus on process, rather than product, is so widely accepted that “it may be difficult to imagine alternative instructional approaches” (De La Paz & McCutchen 2011, 32).” (pg.108) “Rather than simply amending coursework per the views of the practitioners in the field, faculty that engage in research on the industry in concert with academic disciplinary knowledge and teaching expertise, develop more effective instruction and approaches to curriculum design.” (pg.109) This made me think about my case study analysis, as Lin was a student in a program where the educators were very one-track-minded. It’s so important to be receptive to new ideas and perspectives so that you can bring freshness and more effectiveness to your teaching.
In my opinion, the three strands of pedagogical practices to support writers’ development (pg.95) are foundational and essential to help all writers. I definitely believe those are baselines all educators teaching writing should follow.
“Russell (2001) holds that effective writing instruction should focus on what instructors want students to do, rather than what they want them to know.” (pg.96) Personally, I think both are very vital to a student’s knowledge and success within a course. One is no more deserving of attention than the other.
“Despite romantic notions of video games being developed in basements by small groups of talented, enthusiastic friends, “[i]t is important to consider the mass production of games and the industrial process that makes their production possible, since both their aesthetic form and their consumption are influenced by this overarching structure” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen et al. 2015).” (pg.98) I love the concept of CHAT. As students and educators, we get lost in the sauce and sometimes find ourselves doing things just because it’s what’s expected and all we know. Giving historical background to things not only provides a better understanding but also can make the work feel more purposeful.
“Throughout the course of the study, I allowed my knowledge and experience as an educator to inform my efforts.” (pg.101) “Basic philosophical stances on phenomenology hold that it describes the essence of the lived experience, rather than draw conclusions based on the data collected.” (pg.104) To me, this is how you do research. Being led by your experience and knowledge makes things feel personal.
“(Semi-structured interview approach) allowed me to be present in the conversations without losing focus on the intention of the interview.” (pg.102) Conducting interviews can easily slip into a very formal experience, so I appreciated this reminder to be intentional and conscious when collecting your data.
“Game studios that “have indulged the writing process,” have created some of the most innovative and socially- engaged work to date (Bissell 2010).” (pg.110) I’m not a gamer, but occasionally I watch people play video games. This line, and really the entire article, made me think of games like The Last of Us, Life is Strange, or Until Dawn. These decision-making games, filled to the brim with emotions, are great depictions of phenomenal game writers. I mean, The Last of Us started as a video game and is now an HBO series. If that’s not indicative of good writing, I don’t know what is.
“We have to teach students more than just technology; we have to ask ourselves, “What can we give students that the internet cannot?”” (pg.111) As a teacher, this strikes me in a particular place. Technology has taken over so much of our lives, and innovation can be a struggle in education. However, I think this framework and mindset is precisely what today’s teachers need.
In this week’s article, “A Research-Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy” by Seth Andrew Hudson, PhD, the author identifies a challenge in preparing students studying computer game design “with industry-specific skills” (Hudson 109) and argues that there should be more development of pedagogy for these students: “We have to teach students more than just technology; we have to ask ourselves, ‘What can we give students that the internet cannot?’” (Hudson 111). He believes that researchers can “engage with a new field that represents a convergence of technology, art, storytelling, and interactivity in the digital age” (Hudson 111) in a way that will benefit students. Hudson wants educators to come up with a better pedagogical approach to teaching computer game design. With each new study we read for this class, I wonder what happened after the study was published. Most often, I find myself wondering whether it changed anything. Taken alone, Hudson’s study does not result in the new pedagogical approach he desires. But Hudson mentions that he is a teacher, so why doesn’t he just continue working until his objective is realized?
The goal of phenomenology is to “[describe] the essence of lived experience,” which I take to mean that the researcher will be finished with the study once a description evolves. If I were going to engage in research to learn the “essence” of someone’s “lived experience,” I would want to do something more concrete and measurable with it in the end. I can’t imagine being satisfied at the end of a phenomenology research study. However, for those looking to scratch an intellectual itch or provide a basis for additional research that can eventually lead to action, I think that phenomenology is a good choice.
Bình luận về bài viết này